Re: Serious thoughts about objectivity

Michael Cahill (MCBlueline@AOL.COM)
Mon, 14 Oct 1996 10:25:47 -0400

In a message dated 96-10-11 22:30:26 EDT, tarzia@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU (Wade
Tarzia) writes:

<< >I took Wade to be wondering what grounds there might be for rejecting the
>informant's statement and substituting another interpretation--his playing
>the role of a ritual go-between being the speculation that came to the
>anthropologist's mind. This bit of imagination might be a major insight. We
>simply don't know without further evidence. ... -- John McCreery

--- Yes, that's what I meant. And I emphasis (if this be needed) the fact
that I presented a thought experiment to clarify the matter for myself.
Nothing was "real" except for the general topic, which I have been finding

-- wt >>

Understood. In my haste to incorporate Wade's thought experiment into my own
rather strained line of reasoning, I failed to do justice to the subtlety of
the experiment itself. To wit:

<<When does the role end and begin, and can we say that it ends and begins?
Thus how many formal roles does the informant fill, versus how many did he
seem to
recognize, etc? Isn't this where the only recourse to share all data,
though sometimes awkward and voluminous, as well as meta-views?>>

I fully agree. I'm also intrigued by the analytic possibilities of
"gradations of roles through time, and simultaniety of roles."

Mike Cahill